Illinois Farm Bureau To Consider Bush-favored Policy

December 04, 1989|By Richard Orr.

Delegates representing 348,000 Illinois families either directly or indirectly connected with farming this week will vote to approve or disapprove government farm program policies favored by the Bush administration.

The action will come at the 75th annual meeting of the Illinois Farm Bureau (IFB), which opened Sunday at Chicago`s Palmer House and concludes Wednesday. The IFB is one of the two largest state affiliates (along with Texas) of the American Farm Bureau Federation, which claims 3.5 million member families in 49 states and Puerto Rico.

In a hefty package of proposed policy resolutions for 1990, IFB delegates will consider one that puts the organization on record in favor of continuing major elements of the Food Security Act of 1985, which expires at the end of next year. Congressional agriculture committees have been holding hearings since earlier this year on new legislation to replace the 1985 act.

The 1985 legislation was designed to enhance ``market-orientation`` of American agriculture by lowering price supports on major crops to make them more competitive in export markets and thus lower surplus grain stocks. At the same time, the act authorized so-called ``deficiency`` payments (cash subsidies) to maintain farm income.

``Secretary of Agriculture Clayton Yeutter said recently that the administration is proposing that Congress start writing the 1990 farm bill from the 1985 act,`` commented Dennis Vercler, IFB director of news and communications. ``Farm Bureau leaders were early and strong supporters of the 1985 bill, and they feel it has worked (to benefit farmers).

``They would like to see the new bill allow more planting flexibility, but basically they feel the right elements are there.``

The proposed policy resolution IFB delegates will be asked to consider would put the IFB on record favoring federal programs that would maintain a market based upon supply and demand to give accurate and economic signals to both consumers and producers and direct the efficient use of resources.

``We oppose any efforts that require mandatory production controls in agriculture,`` the resolution emphasizes in capital letters.

``Our long-term objective is to avoid the need for government price and income support programs and to maximize agriculture efficiency and growth so net farm income can be realized from the marketplace.

``All commodities are interrelated and any change in supply, demand, or price of one affects the others. (Government) program crop policies should not be developed at the expense of nonprogram crops and other commodities.

``We support the direction of the Food Security Act of 1985 and are opposed to modifications in the program which would change that direction away from market-oriented goals of competitive loan rates, voluntary stock reduction programs, and income supplement as farmers move toward a market-based agriculture. We feel that future farm bills should have provisions that allow farmers the freedom to use their entire tillable acreage as they choose.``

These sentiments echo IFB policies of recent years. Yet, lest anyone get the notion that the organization wants to reduce federal subsidies for farmers, other parts of the proposed resolution are enlightening:

``We support the idea that (price support) loan rates should not be allowed to go below 1989 levels. Future loan rates should be set to reflect inflation. . .